So Who Is This Bond Fellow, Anyway?
If Bond has no place in the world of real espionage, and if the details
of his life, his adventures, and even his face may be changed and
changed again at the storyteller’s discretion, then where does he
belong? Once again, we’re back to the challenge of trying to identify
the one true Bond with only mood, tone, and character to work with, so
let’s consider the things about him that never change from one tale to
the next.
Bond in a warrior. He never serves mere
political expedience or convenience. If any government actually had a
man like Bond on the payroll they’d be unable to resist the temptation
to have him knock off a bothersome investigative reporter or two every now and then,
but Bond never does that. Instead, he fights only clearly identifiable
villains who are at least his equals, if not more powerful. More to the
point, he fights only enemies that can be defeated. In Bond’s world there are no insoluble problems or lingering diplomatic ambiguities.
Bond has a code of honor.
He may have a license to kill, but he does so only reluctantly and
takes no pleasure in doing it. He will try the disabling knee or
shoulder shot rather than the killing shot if he can. (Except when
battling his way through mobs of minions and henchmen, but who cares
about peasants?) He never kills innocent victims, never accidentally
kills the wrong person, and will let a mass-murderer escape to kill
again rather than put women or children in the line of fire. In Bond’s
world there is no collateral damage.
Bond is a gentleman.
He is a master of every form of hand-to-hand combat known to man, but
his signature weapon (which has its own name, by the way) is a
small-caliber pistol, or as Sir Alec Guinness might say, “A weapon with a
more civilized edge.” Bond always meets his adversaries
face-to-face and challenges them to single combat: he never strikes
first from hiding or without warning, and he would never call in an
airstrike to level a crowded restaurant just to get the one evil man
hiding in the basement. Bond’s adventures frequently end with
götterdämmerung final battles, true, but it’s always left to a Felix
Leiter or a Tiger Tanaka to do the scut-work of marshaling the faceless
but loyal peasant infantry; Bond himself answers to a higher calling. In
Bond’s world there are no drunken and unreliable CIA mercenaries.
Finally, Bond is a romantic.
As he travels on his hero’s journey, beautiful women are constantly throwing
themselves at him, and while he may have dalliances — in some
stories, lots of dalliances — there is always one true love
waiting for him at the end of the tale. Admittedly the earlier stories
of his adventures were often quite bawdy, but that was more a reflection
of then-current social mores and the bawdiness has been toned down
considerably in recent years. In Bond’s world there are no sexually
transmitted diseases or pregnant ex-girlfriends.
With all the evidence that has been presented, then, the answer finally begins to become clear. Who is James Bond? He’s no noir
anti-hero, no shadowy undercover operative, and no brilliant intelligence
analyst. He’s no government assassin, no cold-blooded killer, and
certainly no spy.
What he is, in truth, is a paladin. He’s a modern day knight-errant, who, mounted on his noble steed DB5, roams the world, righting wrongs, fighting evil, and protecting the weak. He’s a fantasy hero,
and the place he truly belongs is in the Land of Make-Believe and Once
Upon a Time, standing shoulder to shoulder with Aragorn, Luke Skywalker,
Sir Lancelot, Wilfred of Ivanhoe, and Roland and all his cavaliers,
defending the borders of the peaceable kingdom from the never-resting
forces of darkness that roam out there in the wild lands.
(P.S. And those of you who are still bothered by Bond’s bawdiness should go back and read some of the early chansons de geste, Orlando Furioso, or for that matter an unexpurgated version of the Canterbury Tales. The early aubades and tagelieder
in particular are just full of tales of heroic and noble knights who
nonetheless are a rather randy lot and never pass up the chance for a
good roll in the hay with an unhappily married noblewoman. The idea that
medieval heroes were somehow pure and chaste is mostly the work of
eighteenth-century bluenose Thomas Bowdler and his imitators, and not an
accurate reflection of the actual songs and tales of the Middle Ages.)
Does Bond Have a Place in the Modern World?
The truth of the matter is that real deep-cover human intelligence work is a very disturbing, unpleasant, and ugly business. The truth is that in the world of espionage, “truth” itself is a very rare commodity, constantly attended by a bodyguard of lies and veiled by a smokescreen of ambiguities. The truth is that assassinations and executions — those intelligence operations that are euphemistically termed “wet work” in the jargon of the trade — are utterly stomach-turning in their hideousness and frequently result in much blood, screaming, and death or injury to innocent bystanders.
The irony — some might say, the hypocrisy — of western civilization is that we need those modern paladins who walk the wild forests at the edge of the known world, slaying dragons and goblins so that the petit bourgeoisie might sleep soundly in their beds. But the truth of the matter is that a good clear look at the actions of those same paladins will give most people the screaming heebie-jeebies.
And so we need Commander James Bond, Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve.
Or to put it another way: If you want a sickeningly realistic and unblinking look at the world of real wet work, go watch actor Daniel Craig portray Mossad assassin “Alan” in the movie, Munich (2005). But if you’d prefer a comforting heroic fantasy instead, go watch actor Daniel Craig portray James Bond in the movie, Casino Royale (2006).
Personally, I know which one I would rather believe is out there somewhere, working day and night with no regard for his own safety, to protect me and all those I hold dear.
[...to be concluded...]
I agree with your description of Bond except it does not apply to Daniel Craig's portrayal. Not sure he has a code of honor or is a romanitc. I think he's a chronically depressed asshole who pretends to be those things and does a pretty crappy job. The previous Bonds actually seemed to give a crap about the women they slept with. Craig's Bond doesn't bat an eye when the women start dying. He just slugs another vodka martini and moves on. He seems more John LeCarre without the depth than Ian Flemming and I hate what he did to the franchise.
ReplyDelete